Robert Louis Stevenson

[Phil H]

I am grateful to Debra A for the correction - am no expert on Le Grand.

Phil

jsantos - I give you the befit of the doubt in your failure either to answer questions or to take the point of my posts - I put it down to a language difference.

However,

And Walter Sickert, James Maybrick, Lewis Carroll, Aaron Kosminski, Michael Ostrog, and a thousand more? Why you not write that they also saw his reputation contaminated?

Because their names (excluding Carroll) were not picked from the air by anyone.

Sickert himself expressed a sustained interest in the Whitechapel murders (and others) and the possibility that he was himself the Ripper was raised by those who knew him. Thus "Ripperologists did not "conjure" him as a suspect.

Maybrick's name emerged as a result of the "Diary", which inevitably gave rise to discussion of its authenticity and Maybrick's likelihood as JtR. The difference here, forgery or not, is the Diary.

There is NO reason to suggest Carroll asJtR and I think I have consistently condemned his being discussed. (The fact that you quote his name back to me suggests you do not read or do not comprhend my posts.

Kosminski and Ostrog were named by Sir Melville Macnaghten in his memorandum (known since the 60s) and thus are almost contemporary suspects - hence reasonable candidates for discussion and debate. MM may well have had material unknown and unavailable to us to support his contentions, but much of the discussion is about the memorandum is about MM's reasons for including the names. Indeed, one could argue that, in the absence of any new information, Druitt and Ostrog have been practically exhonerated!

BUT this reasoning was made explicit in my last post - did you not read it at all?l

Just because you hear the first time another name, in this case RLS, is no reason to be worse than other cases. I don`t need to write a book to explain what I think...

But you do need to cite both a reasoned case for naming RLS as a suspect - saying that ONE story he wrote might be interesting in the JtR context is not, in my humble opinion such a reasoned case. And you cannot reasonably dismiss evidence known to you that RLS was known to be elsewhere at the times involved. If you think that RLS's hitherto known whereabouts are not true, then logically you have to cite evidence to support your claim.

Finally, no one before you has named RLS as a JtR suspect - it is thus incumbent upon you to show why you believe it reasonable to propose him - and reliance on the one story is insufficient, it would be a circular argument. RLS is dead and cannot defend himself. In all honour you should avoid besmirching his memory and reputation unless you have the strongest grounds for doing so. I have suggested in previous posts what some of those grounds might be, but you consistently ignore them.

Phil

[TomTomKent]

You have indeeds Phil. My own tendancy is that regardless of how recently a suspect is nominated it must fit provable facts first before asking if the suspect matches assumed traits we want to apply to Jack. The only facts we have are the dates and forensic details of the murders. These have been neglectesd by Jsantos.

For any suspect to be viable they must be placed in whitechappel on the dates of the crimes we consider Jacks. Saying "i don't think he was in Samoa" is not enough. We have to place him in London, in the district.

Further we have to have a valid reason for assuming he was involved instead of just an observer or witness. Writing fiction is not a good enough reason. Fitting the description of individuals witnessed, or of those being actively sought by the police, or being dragged to a mental hospital for violence towards women are more convincing reasons.

Remember a lot of people travelled to and took an interest in the area of the crimes. Given his interest was known RLS being in the area would not equate to him being a suspect. We have better reasons to explain his presence and no validation for suspicion.

Last of all we get to the flavour stuff. The "evidence" this entire theory is based on. Any argument that Jack wrote this letter, or showed signs of education, or could be assumed to be rich, or anything not contained in physical evidence is flavour guff used to dramatise the affair, but academically is worthless. It is based entirely on fancy, proves nothing, and is intendedto suggest that somebody is probably the kind of person Jackwas, because that person was probably Jack. Circularlogic with no foundationof evidence.

[Debra A]

4) There are then suspects connected to the JtR murders who are discussed as potential suspects: Le Grand has emerged recently, but Kidney, Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, Cross/Lechmere would all be examples.

I also perceive these as unquestionably open for debate/discussion as there is nothing abitrary about their inclusion as possible suspects. Their connection to the murders (albeit sometimes tangentially) is well-established.

As I mentioned to Phil earlier in a private message; Le Grand is in a different category to suspects such as Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, etc. as suspicion was attached to Le Grand in connection with the murders in 1892, (and perhaps 1889) in an article in The Belfast News-Letter Monday, March 28, 1892, in which Le Grand is not named but is obviously the subject:

"..The fact is they [Scotland Yard] consider, rightly or wrongly, that they have the author of the Whitechapel tragedies now under lock and key at Portland Prsion, undergoing a sentence of twenty years penal servitude.He is a Beligian, and was tried and sentenced some six months ago for attempts to obtain money from ladies by threats of violence..."

At the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London, on 16th November 1891 Charles Grande was convicted for sending letter demanding money with menaces and sentenced to 20 years penal servitude.

I would say that Le Grand may even be in a unique category? Someone who had suspicion attached to him shortly after the murders and can also be shown to have been in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, even involved in investigating one of them.

Sorry to disrupt the thread, I was only going to make a quick post!
This was just for the benefit of anyone else who was unaware of the contemporary suspicion attached to Le Grand.

[jsantos]

"The reputation and character of Prince Eddy/Clarence will be forever contaminated by his JtR connection..."
Is funny... Only because he was a prince.
And Walter Sickert, James Maybrick, Lewis Carroll, Aaron Kosminski, Michael Ostrog, and a thousand more? Why you not write that they also saw his reputation contaminated?
Just because you hear the first time another name, in this case RLS, is no reason to be worse than other cases. I don`t need to write a book to explain what I think...

[Phil H]

jsantos

I see JtR suspects in a number of categories:

1) There are those suspected during the investigations (Pizer, Issenschmidt etc)

2) Then there are those mentioned close to the time - Kosminski; Druitt, Ostrog, for instance (the MM memorandum);

3) Those who emerged from the writings of contemporaries but were only uncovered by researchers later - Tumblety (from Littlechild) is a good example.

I would consider all these valid subjects for study and debate/discussion without reservation or apology. Good historical practice.

4) There are then suspects connected to the JtR murders who are discussed as potential suspects: Le Grand has emerged recently, but Kidney, Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, Cross/Lechmere would all be examples.

I also perceive these as unquestionably open for debate/discussion as there is nothing abitrary about their inclusion as possible suspects. Their connection to the murders (albeit sometimes tangentially) is well-established.

5) We now turn to suspects who have been associated with the crimes either by others in the past who knew them (Sickert is an example);

6) or were mentioned as generic types (the insane medical student) and named candidates have been suggested for discussion.

7) Debate about statements made by police officers and others at the time - "a hot potato"; "highest in the land" etc - which has given rise to discussion of HRH the Duke of Clarence, Gull etc.

Note that in none of 5, 6 or 7 are names simply plucked from thin air. In most cases they have been entirely exhonerated.

The final category is:

8) Names picked from thin air with no known connection to the crimes except a modern author or student's whim - Lewis Carroll, Dr Barnardo and RLS would be prime examples. Clarence might be put in this category given the way he emerged into "Ripperology".

I see this practice as puerile and pointless and contrary to your statements "mud" does stick. (The reputation and character of Prince Eddy/Clarence will be forever contaminated by his JtR connection even though the claim is and always was rubbish. He may be more high-profile than your unsubstantiated claims about RLS, but that is only because you have not -yet - thankfully published a book on the subject.)

The claims are almost always in defience of previous scholarly thinking, the evidence, the known whereabouts of the individual at the time, and common sense. The supporting reasoning is almost always based on the suppositional - anagrams, asserting that the individual wrote certain things - JK STephen -without proof; some forced motive - a strange assortment of royal anniversaries (again Stephen) and such like.

None of this is in accord with historical method, academic practice or even common sense. hence my objection to your proposal which i refuse even to think of as a "theory".

I recognise that "suspects" could be categorised in various ways, and I have certainly not mentioned every name possible, but I trust I have made my point.

Phil

[TomTomKent]

Mr. Phil between August and November of 1888 Robert was on the ship travelling for Samoa. This is the fact that everyone knows.

Then as Phil has repeatedly stated you will have to supply evidence this is not true if you want your idea to be considered viable.

[jsantos]

There are hundreds of suspects but perhaps none was Jack the Ripper.
But they all were and continue to be targets of defamation...

[jsantos]

Mr. Phil between August and November of 1888 Robert was on the ship travelling for Samoa. This is the fact that everyone knows.
First of all I just wrote my theory.
Second I said my opinion, if my opinion is not taken seriously is not defamation.
And finally if I`m writing something that I shouldn`t I suggest that it`s removed from the site.
Mr. Phil all your reviews about Jack case are based on what? Is your opinion or you lived at the time of the crimes?

P.S.
If I have a website and if I let someone else write on this site something "illegal" I delete immediately what that person wrote.

[Phil H]

I think you'll find that there are many variations, jsantos.

I myself no longer believe in Sir MM's 5 (the canonical five, if you will). I think, Nichols, Chapman and eddowes are almost certainly the same hand. On Stride and Kelly I think separate killers (and not JtR) were responsible. I would add McKenzie in, but link Tabram and Smith as victims of a "group". There may have been earlier murders, or attempts by Jack, who had probably to learn his "trade" somehow.

By the way you have still to answer my questions about RLS - where is any corroboration from other sources of your claims, and where was he (evidence please) between August and end November 1888 - I do not believe that his whereabouts are unknown.

Otherwise I will continue to denounce your theory as unsubstantiated, practically* libellous - as you have written it -nonsense.

*I am well aware that in the Uk you cannot libel the dead - but you are ruining a marvellous reputation with your wholly unfounded claims.

Phil

[jsantos]

Tom always writes to seem that everything I write does not make sense.
Any poll on this site proves that most people believe in a sixth victim. And her name is Martha Tabram. C`mon...

[ChrisGeorge]

I don`t think Jack was a lunatic, a poor or only a marginal. If jack was one of these and had killed five or six women, sooner or later would be caught.
I think it is more than proven that he's smart, probably a person with education and money. And evident personality disorders, but not a lunatic. A person who has the perfect idea of good and evil, but can live with both sides.

Hi jsantos

It sounds as if you are pointing to someone very much like Robert Louis Stevenson, doesn't it? But that's only because you have made up your mind that RLS was the killer so of course the Ripper has to be someone just like him. The plain fact though is that we don't know who the Ripper was, whether he was a poor, ill-educated man or a rich, well-educated man, or something in between. But he must have had at least some sort of "street smarts" to have got away time and time again without being detected. So far, you have failed to come up with any persuasive argument why we should take RLS seriously as a candidate to have been Jack the Ripper.

Best regards

Chris George

[TomTomKent]

The Macnaghten Memorandum marked the history of Jack the Ripper, but because most ripperologists believe that Jack committed six murders (including Martha Tabram) and not five, it`s time to correct the number of Jack victims.

Again, at the risk of being picky, but do you have any kind of study that shows "Most" Ripperologists believe this? In my experience the Canonical 5 are the most common "known" victims, but some have more or fewer in that catagory, with much debate over which if any other "suspected" victim is plausible, unlikely, worth considering, and so forth.

[TomTomKent]

I don`t think Jack was a lunatic, a poor or only a marginal. If jack was one of these and had killed five or six women, sooner or later would be caught.
I think it is more than proven that he's smart, probably a person with education and money. And evident personality disorders, but not a lunatic. A person who has the perfect idea of good and evil, but can live with both sides.

You seem to be mistaking "being caught" for "being identified." Furthermore this is a nonsequitor argument: Being smart and educated are seperate issues, and only one of them is plausibly connected to your wealth. But does an education help you be a successful Ripper? What about a classical education pertains to the murders or avoiding capture? Surely these are skills more commonly associated with the working or criminal classes?

This argument can be entirely inverted: If Jack were not poor and working class why would thaat make him LESS likely to be recognised and persued by the police or the vigilance comittees than an upper class member of the elite who was obviously "not from round these parts".

Then we have to ask what evidence there is that suggests "Jack" was in any way educated? Do not witter on about the letters, graffito, or anything on the "margins", you are talking about Jack, and the only crimes we can say for sure were by his hands were the murders. If you are going to claim something is more than proven, then supply proof. Otherwise it is not "proven" but your subjective opinion.

[jsantos]

The Macnaghten Memorandum marked the history of Jack the Ripper, but because most ripperologists believe that Jack committed six murders (including Martha Tabram) and not five, it`s time to correct the number of Jack victims.

[jsantos]

I don`t think Jack was a lunatic, a poor or only a marginal. If jack was one of these and had killed five or six women, sooner or later would be caught.
I think it is more than proven that he's smart, probably a person with education and money. And evident personality disorders, but not a lunatic. A person who has the perfect idea of good and evil, but can live with both sides.